From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45225) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aYA1c-0005LD-9p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:17:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aYA1Z-0000b7-DM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:17:00 -0500 Received: from mx3-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.24]:54392) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aYA1Z-0000b0-4I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:16:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:16:55 -0500 (EST) From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <175894647.27918982.1456222615943.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20160222215603.GB3901@thinpad.lan.raisama.net> References: <1456136399-6227-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <56CB5E24.1010804@twiddle.net> <20160222215603.GB3901@thinpad.lan.raisama.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: fix confusion in xcr0 bit position vs. mask List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eduardo Habkost Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Richard Henderson ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eduardo Habkost" > To: "Richard Henderson" > Cc: "Paolo Bonzini" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 10:56:03 PM > Subject: Re: [PATCH] target-i386: fix confusion in xcr0 bit position vs. mask > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:14:44AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote: > > On 02/22/2016 02:19 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > The xsave and xrstor helpers are accessing the x86_ext_save_areas array > > > using a bit mask instead of a bit position. Provide two sets of XSTATE_* > > > definitions and use XSTATE_*_BIT when a bit position is requested. > > > > Whoops. This patch is fine, > > > > Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson > > > > Dosen't Eduardo have a pending patch set to make xsave use a struct? That > > would fix this as well, by not requiring fpu_helper.c to use the > > x86_ext_save_areas array at all... > > That's true, but the bug fix have priority, so I will queue it > first. Actually, I'm sending out a pull request today so I was thinking of including this. Paolo